Upload
trinhthuy
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SAMPLE
6
1The Bauer Thesis: An OverviewRodney J. Decker
Controversies regarding Jesus and the early Jesus movement are
certainly not new, dating back now several centuries.1 Philip Jenkins sum-
marizes an often-forgotten history of the proposals which have been “a pe-
rennial phenomenon within Western culture since the Enlightenment.”2
The primary impetus for the recent outbreak of speculation has not been
the discovery of new data very different from what we have known for a
long time. Rather it is, claims Jenkins, a philosophical/ideological shift in
Western culture: the rise of postmodernism and its entailments.3
One of the current writers in the media spotlight is Bart Ehrman.
He is not the first nor only voice advocating a radical overhaul of our
conception of early Christianity.4 He has been, however, one of the more
1. For an overview of the various “Jesus Quests,” see Bock, Studying the Historical
Jesus; Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God?; Johnson, Real Jesus; Schweitzer, Von Reimarus
zu Wrede; later titled Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, 2nd German ed., ET, The
Quest of the Historical Jesus, 2nd English ed.; Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire;
Witherington Jesus Quest, 2nd ed.; and Witherington, What Have They Done with Je-
sus?; and, on a broader scale, Baird, History of New Testament Research, 3 vols.
2. Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 15; see his summary on pp. 13–15.
3. Ibid., 15–20, 124–47, 169–77. I have not attempted to track all the reasons for
the contemporary speculation, being content with noting only the most significant
issues.
4. For similar literature, see Riley, One Jesus, Many Christs; Lüdemann, Heretics;
Hopkins, World Full of Gods; Pagels, Gnostic Gospels; Dart, Jesus of Heresy and History;
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 7
visible and influential voices.5 This is due to several factors. First, he is a
first-rate scholar in a significant discipline, New Testament textual criti-
cism. In this regard he has justifiably benefited from his association with
the “dean” of that field, Bruce Metzger.6 He is also a good writer and effec-
tive communicator. In addition, he has achieved broad media exposure
for his popularization of more scholarly work.7 His major publications
relevant to the history of early Christianity include the following:
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (1993)
Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths
We Never Knew (2003)
Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the
New Testament (2003)
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible
and Why (2005)
Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in
the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them) (2009)
Forged: Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible’s Authors
Are Not Who We Think They Are (2011)
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher
from Galilee (2014)
The thesis which Ehrman proposes runs as follows, in his own words.
After listing a wide range of phenomena in the diverse groups compris-
ing “Christendom”8—including everything from Roman Catholic mis-
Funk, Honest to Jesus; and Ruether, Women and Redemption.
5. The real issues are not in Ehrman, though he builds on them; he is only the most
recent popularizer of much older ideas. Perhaps this record of my explorations (and
excavations!) in the piles that have accumulated in my study of late will be of help in
orienting others to the issues which Ehrman’s writings have raised.
6. Ehrman was one of Metzger’s last two PhD students in textual criticism at Princ-
eton (the other being Michael Holmes) and he was selected to prepare the most recent
revision of Metzger’s standard textbook, Text of the New Testament, 4th ed.
7. Ehrman has been featured on National Public Radio, has served as a consultant
for major media specials on related topics (e.g., the Gospel of Judas), and has achieved
significant rankings on bestseller lists.
8. The use of “Christendom” is my term, intended to be understood as a very broad
cover term for any and all groups that profess any form of allegiance to Jesus and/or
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts8
sionaries, snake handlers, Greek Orthodoxy, fundamentalists, mainline
churches, to David Koresh—Ehrman writes,
All this diversity of belief and practice, and the intolerance
that occasionally results, makes it difficult to know whether
we should think of Christianity as one thing or lots of things,
whether we should speak of Christianity or Christianities.
What could be more diverse than this variegated phenom-
enon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be
an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. . . .
Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown
to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be
reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some
ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives
came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten—in one way or
another lost. . . .
Virtually all forms of modern Christianity . . . go back to
one form of Christianity that emerged as victorious from the
conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of
Christianity decided what was the “correct” Christian perspec-
tive; it decided who could exercise authority over Christian
belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christian-
ity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided
which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set
aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas.
And then, as a coup de grâce, this victorious party rewrote
the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had
not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views
had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times,
back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that its perspective,
in effect, had always been “orthodox” (i.e., the “right belief ”)
and that its opponents in the conflict, with their other scriptural
texts, had always represented small splinter groups invested in
deceiving people into “heresy.”
It is striking that, for centuries, virtually everyone who stud-
ied the history of early Christianity simply accepted the version
of the early conflicts written by the orthodox victors. This all
began to change in a significant way in the nineteenth century as
some scholars began to question the “objectivity” of such early
Christian writers as the fourth-century orthodox writer Euse-
bius, the so-called Father of Church History, who reproduced
the term Christian. Ehrman calls it simply “Christianity”—without delineation as to
how that ought to be defined.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 9
for us the earliest account of the conflict. This initial query into
Eusebius’s accuracy eventually became, in some circles, a virtual
onslaught on his character, as twentieth-century scholars began
to subject his work to an ideological critique that exposed his
biases and their role in his presentation. This reevaluation of
Eusebius was prompted, in part, by the discovery of additional
ancient books . . . other Gospels, for example, that also claimed
to be written in the names of apostles.9
Ehrman is quite right that this is not the traditional portrait of early
Christianity. But it is by no means original with him, though he has done
as much to popularize it as anyone in recent years. The real credit for this
view of history belongs to Walter Bauer, so we will fittingly commence
with the fountain and by first examining Bauer’s influential thesis.10
Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy (1934)Brilliant, profound, extremely well read, indefatigable—these are all ac-
curate descriptions of the German scholar to whom we owe much.11 Al-
though taking sharp issue with Bauer’s thesis under consideration, I have
a great respect for his lexical work.12 No serious work in New Testament
9. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 1, 4, 5.
10. It is possible that the core of Bauer’s ideas are much older; Harold O. J. Brown
refers to Johann Semler’s contention that “the present canon is arbitrary and represents
the victory of the Roman see in the ecclesiastical politics of the early church” (Brown,
Heresies, 71; citing Semler, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canons, but no
page reference is given; I have not had access to Semler’s work to see if the idea is
developed further).
There are definitely other contributing factors, most of which are closer at hand
than Semler’s eighteenth-century work. Michel Desjardins comments that Bauer’s
“study was a natural extension of a preceding century’s scholarly work,” listing the
Tübingen school (F. C. Baur), the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, and Harnack’s work
on heresy and the gnostics as direct contributors to the thesis of Bauer’s Orthodoxy
and Heresy (Desjardins, “Bauer and Beyond,” 67–68). See also Robinson, Bauer Thesis
Examined, 15–18, who qualifies the nature of the relationship between Tübingen/F. C.
Baur and Walter Bauer’s argument.
11. In this section references to the English translation of Bauer’s Orthodoxy and
Heresy are given parenthetically (as is also the case in other summaries that follow).
The sketch given here cannot be complete due to limitations of space, but the main
lines of Bauer’s argument are traced, though without much of his supporting evidence.
I have tried to make the summary just that and refrain from critique at this point.
When unavoidable, I have added my comments in a footnote.
12. My extensive tributes (and corrections) to BDAG may be found at www.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts10
exegesis is possible without reference to his lexicon, whether the third
English edition13 or the sixth German edition.14 But before the profes-
sor from Göttingen turned his attention to lexicography15 Walter Bauer
(1877–1960) published several works on the history of the early church,
including a 1903 study of the Syrian canon of the epistles in the fourth
and fifth centuries16 and another in 1909 of Jesus in the apocrypha.17 Bau-
er published a major work in 1934 which has had major influence in its
field over the last eighty years: Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten
Christentum18—a “paradigm-shaping book.”19 Although widely discussed
on the Continent and in England,20 it was not until the release of an Eng-
lish translation almost forty years later that its impact was noticeably felt
in America.21 Since that time it has influenced almost every discussion of
the topic.22 Orthodoxy and Heresy is not a full statement of Bauer’s ideas
ntresources.com/blog/?s=bdag. It should be noted that Danker’s contributions to the
English edition are at least equally valuable with Bauer’s original work.
13. Edited by Frederick Danker. The first English translation, known as “BAG,”
appeared in 1957, based on the 4th German edition. The second English edition of
1979 (“BAGD”) was based on the fifth edition of the German work.
14. Aland, Aland, and Reichmann, Griechisch-Deutsches Wöterbuch, 6th ed. The
third English edition is known as BDAG (Bauer and Danker, Greek-English Lexicon).
See Decker, “Using BDAG.”
15. Bauer was the editor for the 1928, second edition of Preuschen’s lexicon with
the third edition of 1937 bearing Bauer’s name alone. The fourth edition in 1949–1952
was the most significant revision, followed by a fifth edition, the last edited by Bauer,
in 1957–1958; a sixth edition of the German work appeared in 1988 For a more de-
tailed history of BDAG, see Decker, “Using BDAG.” Jerry Flora’s dissertation provides
a broad review of Bauer’s life and scholarly career (Flora, “Critical Analysis of Walter
Bauer’s Theory,” 23–35).
16. Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer.
17. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu.
18. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum. The text of the
two editions is essentially the same with only typographical corrections; the major
difference is the addition of two essays by Strecker in the second edition.
19. Bingham, “Development and Diversity,” 50.
20. See Strecker, “Reception of the Book,” 286–316 for a listing of reviews and an
extensive discussion of reactions to Bauer’s German work.
21. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy.
22. A surprising exception is the 500-page work on heresy by H. O. J. Brown (Her-
esies). I can find no citation of Bauer in the footnotes and he is not listed in the index.
Although one chapter bibliography lists the title (chap. 2, p. 22), there is no interaction
with Bauer in the chapter.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 11
regarding the origins of “orthodoxy” and “heresy,” but this limited essay
does not allow a broader discussion of Bauer’s other writings.23
Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy argues that we cannot merely assume
that orthodoxy came first and that heresy is a later deviation, for in doing
so we “simply agree with the judgment of the anti-heretical fathers for the
post-New Testament period” (xxi). This is neither scientific nor fair since
we are listening to only one voice—that of the winners; we do not allow the
losers to speak for themselves. “Perhaps . . . certain manifestations of Chris-
tian life that the authors of the church renounce as ‘heresies’ originally had
not been such at all, but, at least here and there, were the only form of the
new religion—that is, for those regions they were simply ‘Christianity.’ The
possibility also exists that their adherents constituted the majority” (xxii).
This is the hypothesis that Bauer proposes to test, though Bauer’s
professed neutral critical method too frequently slips into the role of de-
fense lawyer or apologist for the heretics rather than impartial judge of the
evidence.24 The evidence he examines in subsequent chapters is considered
geographically, area by area, to determine the evidence for what form/s
of Christianity are attested in the earliest discernible period. Bauer begins
with Edessa and follows with Egypt, Antioch, Asia Minor, and Rome.
Syrian Edessa, located on a tributary of the Euphrates just north
of the present north-central border of Turkey and Syria, is the focus of
Bauer’s first chapter. After discrediting all traditional accounts of the
origins of Christianity in Edessa, Bauer argues that the original form of
Christianity there was Marcionite (and that not until mid-second cen-
tury, followed by Bardesanes and his followers shortly afterwards). It was
not until the end of the second century that there is any trace of what
came later to be known as “orthodoxy,” which remained a small minority
through the fourth century. Only in the fifth century is orthodoxy finally
imposed on Edessa by the “rather coarse methods” of Bishop Rabbula,
the “tyrant of Edessa” (27). The “beginnings for the history of Christian-
ity in Edessa” rest on “an unmistakably heretical basis” (43).
23. For a survey of the relevant material from Bauer’s previous books and articles,
see Betz, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity,” 299–311.
24. I have read similar statements several times and do not know who originated
the analogy. For two representative instances, see Moffat, “Review,” 475 (“he tends to
take the position of the barrister rather than of the judge”); and Desjardins, “Bauer and
Beyond,” 68n9 (“his professed impartiality shifts at times to an apologist on behalf of
the ‘heretics’”).
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts12
Egypt next receives attention. Bauer declines to be discouraged by the
silence of the sources regarding the early history of Christianity in Egypt
since Edessan history establishes the pattern. Why would the churchmen
have been “silent about the origins of Christianity in such an important
center as Alexandria if there had been something favorable to report?”
(45). The answer, though conjectural, is clear: Egyptian Christianity was,
like Edessa, heretical in origin. The earliest form of the faith was gnostic
no later than the beginning of the second century. Not until the end of
that century does “orthodoxy” appear and “even into the third century, no
separation between orthodoxy and heresy was accomplished” (59).
Bauer then turns to Antioch, which, though seeming to the reader of
the New Testament to be a bastion of normative Christianity,25 had long
been heavily influenced by heretical movements. Since the time of Paul’s
defeat there (Gal 2), Antioch “played no significant role in the history of
the church” (63)—that is the proto-orthodox church. Instead there was
a syncretistic mixture of “Jewish Christianity,” Gentile Christianity [i.e.,
what was left of Paul’s influence], and Gnosticism. Not until the “frantic
concern” (63) of Ignatius in the early second century is there a renewed
attempt to reestablish “orthodoxy.” Ignatius, however, is not a reliable
source since his exuberance causes him to lose “all sense of proportion
. . . [so] one must be especially careful in evaluating the accuracy of his
statements” (61). His attempt to impose a powerful monarchical bishop
structure on the church is a political move by someone in a minority
position attempting to gain power and control (62).
Asia Minor also shows unmistakable gnostic influence, and that
within the churches, as reflected in the Johannine literature.26 Ignatius’s
letters to churches in Asia Minor are also relevant in this regard, since
they reflect the limit of his influence. He can expect to be heard in only
a few churches, and even then he is attempting to “stretch the circle of
his influence as widely as possible” (79). It is significant that four of the
churches in the region which had earlier been addressed in the Apoca-
lypse are not included in Ignatius’s list. Since these are the churches most
25. Bauer declines to consider New Testament evidence since it “seems to be both
too unproductive and too much disputed to be able to serve as a point of departure”
(Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, xxv).
26. John the “apocalyptic seer” is not very useful for the current question according
to Bauer since his “extremely confused religious outlook that peculiarly mixes Jewish,
Christian, and mythological elements and ends up in chiliasm . . . [a] stormy outburst,
seething with hate” marks him, not as an intellectual or spiritual leader of influence,
but only as a proponent of “wishful thinking” (Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 77–78).
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 13
severely rebuked by John, it is evident that they moved into full-blown
heresy by the time of Ignatius (78–79). That Hierapolis and Colossae are
“bypassed in icy silence by both John and Ignatius” (80) further reflects
the lack of influence of orthodoxy in this area. Peter likewise is very selec-
tive in his address to the churches of Asia Minor (1 Pet 1:1), leaving large
“blank spots on the map” of Asian orthodoxy: “there simply was nothing
to be gained for ‘ecclesiastically’ oriented Christianity in that area at that
time” (82). Even Ephesus, often perceived as the bastion of Pauline ortho-
doxy, has been lost to that cause by the end of the first century, perhaps to
the extent that Paul’s foundational labors there had been forgotten. Paul
“lost the contest in Ephesus” (85), something that was becoming evident
even during his lifetime. “Orthodoxy” was only reorganized much later
when the apostle John became their patron, likely due to the arrival of
Jewish Christians (including John and Philip) from Jerusalem following
the war with Rome. Yet even this did not result in an “orthodox” victory
since the Pastorals still reflect a major problem with Gnosticism in the
second century (89).
Next Bauer considers the Roman church and its tactics in establish-
ing their particular brand of Christianity as the dominant form world-
wide. The initial foray in this direction is Bauer’s study of 1 Clement, the
letter from the church of Rome to the Corinthian church written near
the end of the first century. We cannot trust the direct statements of this
biased letter, says Bauer, but must read between the lines to reconstruct
the actual situation which prompted the letter and decipher the real mo-
tivation for Rome’s letter. “Rome takes action not when it is overflowing
with love or when the great concerns of the faith are really in jeopardy,
but when there is at least the opportunity of enlarging its own sphere
of influence” (97–98).
The first evidence we have of this Roman strategy is in relation to
the church at Corinth, reflected in the letter of 1 Clement. In that situ-
ation “internal discord greatly reduced the power of resistance of the
Corinthian church, so that it seemed to be easy prey” (98). The specifics
there involve the usurpation of the existing church leaders by younger
ones; Rome writes in an effort to reinstate the older leaders who were
more favorable to the Roman position. The conflict goes all the way
back to Paul. Those rebuked by him as “the strong” were gnostics who,
though silenced at the time, had gradually increased in number (their
position was more attractive to the community than Paul’s approach),
though they chafed under the repressive leadership of the church. By the
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts14
time of 1 Clement they had become strong enough to oust the leaders
(which by this time were a coalition of the Paul and Cephas parties) and
to take over the church (100–101), perhaps even imposing an “energetic
bishop” on the previously plural presbyterate (112). “Rome succeeded in
imposing its will on Corinth” to the extent that a half century later the
Corinthian church still accepted Roman authority and read 1 Clement in
their services (104). And so began the Roman movement to consolidate
her authority one church at a time, culminating in the exclusive establish-
ment of Rome’s brand of Christianity, now branded as “orthodoxy,” in
the fourth century.
The Roman juggernaut evidenced itself in later claims of apos-
tolic succession used in the fight against heresy, not only in Rome but
elsewhere under Roman influence. Rome also extended her influence
through teaching Christians in other places and also through generous
financial gifts—and “such gifts were not the least reason why their oppo-
nents emerged victorious” (122, seeming to imply that Rome’s opponents
were “bought”). Bauer cites Eusebius’s (much later) comment as reflective
of a practice that had been operative earlier as well:
The encomium of Eusebius upon the Emperor Constantine
(3.58) teaches us that Rome viewed it as an altogether legitimate
practice in religious controversy to tip the scales with golden
weights: “In his beneficent concern that as many as possible be
won for the teaching of the gospel, the emperor also made rich
donations there [in Phoenician Heliopolis] for the support of
the poor, with the aim of rousing them even in this way to the
acceptance of saving truth (123).27
The following two chapters trace the rhetoric in the orthodoxy-
heresy debate, as well as the use of literature. Both parties used written
documents, and each used whatever means possible to discredit their
opponents, to the extent of falsifying and/or destroying documents (160)
and even modifying their own source documents to more clearly make
their case (160, supported with several pages of illustration from the Od-
yssey!). The various polemical writings employed cannot be trusted to
represent accurately the opponents’ position, and since the “orthodox”
came to hold the privileged position, we have little from the heretics’ own
pens even though they were the more prolific writers (194). The most
extensive “orthodox” writer, Eusebius, is not to be trusted; his “serious
27. Bracketed material is original in Bauer.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 15
misuse of the superlative” (and other problems), says Bauer, “is suf-
ficient to remove any inclination I might have to take such assertions
seriously” (192). Other than his citations from other writers, little is use-
ful; “we cannot establish any firm foothold on the basis of what Eusebius
himself contributes” (192).
Traditional literature is treated next: the use of the Old Testament
as well as divergent gospels. “At that point there probably was no version
of Christianity worthy of note that did not have at its disposal at least
one written gospel, in which Jesus appears as the bearer and guarantor
of that particular view” (203). Though the other gospels were accepted
fairly early (especially Mark and Matthew), John’s gospel was viewed with
suspicion in orthodox Rome almost from the start (208). It was rather
the preferred gospel of the gnostics and other heretics. “When the gospel
canon was defined, which was to be valid for the entire church, Rome
found itself overruled, to put it rather crudely” (212).28
When we come to the epistles, Paul is nearly irrelevant to early
Roman orthodoxy, being the darling of many of the heretics (215–25).
Bauer’s summary is worth citing.
Perhaps, as the situation developed, some would have preferred
henceforth to exclude Paul completely. . . . But it was already too
late for that. Rome (together with the “church,” which it led) had
already accepted too much from the Apostle to the Gentiles, had
appealed to him too often, suddenly to recognize him no longer.
. . . 1 Corinthians had proved itself to be extremely productive
for purposes of church politics in the hands of Rome. . . .
. . . I am inclined to see the pastoral Epistles as an attempt
on the part of the church unambiguously to enlist Paul as part of
its anti-heretical front and to eliminate the lack of confidence in
him in ecclesiastical circles. . . . The church raised up the Paul of
orthodoxy by using [pseudonymous] means. . . .
The price the Apostle of the Gentiles had to pay to be al-
lowed to remain in the church was the complete surrender of
his personality and historical particularity. . . . Whenever the
“church” becomes powerful, the bottom drops out from under
him and he must immediately give way to the celebrities from
the circle of the twelve apostles. . . . To some extent Paul becomes
influential only as part of the holy scriptures acknowledged in
the church—not the personality of the Apostle to the Gentiles
28. This is a rather ironic statement in Bauer regarding the church which otherwise
exercised such authoritarian power!
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts16
and his proclamation, but the word of Paul . . . whenever it is
useful for the development and preservation of ecclesiastical
teaching. . . . The introduction of the pastoral Epistles actually
made the collection of Paul’s letters ecclesiastically viable for the
very first time (225–28 passim).
Paul seems to fare quite poorly in the hands of Bauer’s early “or-
thodoxy.” This is largely because of what Bauer perceives to be Paul’s “as
yet quite rudimentary organization of thought patterns” (234), but even
more because of his plasticity and tolerance. Not only could he be used
by so many diverse groups, he “scarcely knows what a heretic might be”
(234). He knows that a lot of other Christians disagree with him—and
that is fine with him. It is only the “most serious moral deviation” (235)
that gets him upset. Even when he felt opposing positions to be “defec-
tive, he still did not detest and condemn them as heretical” (237).29
What we have known since the fourth century as “orthodoxy” was
originally the dominant form of Christianity only in Rome. Through gen-
erous financial “gifts” and persuasive correspondence, “Rome confidently
extends itself eastward, tries to break down resistance and stretches out a
helping hand to those who are like-minded, drawing everything within
reach into the well-knit structures of ecclesiastical organization” (231).
Rome is thus the winner who vanquishes heresy by superior ability,
backed by financial and political resources.
Bauer concludes by reflecting that “it is indeed a curious quirk of
history that western Rome was destined to begin to exert the determina-
tive influence upon a religion which had its cradle in the Orient, so as to
give it that form in which it was to achieve worldwide recognition” (240).
None of the heretical forms of Christianity, be they gnostic, Marcionite,
or Montanist, “could have achieved such recognition” (240).
The essence, then, of Bauer’s thesis is two-fold: in the beginning
there were many varieties of Christianity (i.e., not a single, unified set of
beliefs that later became what we know as “orthodoxy”), and second, it
29. In regard to passages that seem to contradict this portrait of Paul, Bauer adds
a footnote: “The thrust of the polemic in Phil. 3 and in Rom. 16.17–20 is not entirely
clear—or in any event, can be interpreted in different ways—and may be left aside at
this point” (Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 236n11). In other words, he ignored what
was not convenient for his theory! For a careful consideration of Paul’s influence vis-
à-vis Bauer, though in this case in the context of Philippi, see Hartog, Polycarp and
the New Testament, 216–22. For Paul’s influence on Polycarp, see Berding, Polycarp
and Paul.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 17
was the victory of one party, the church of Rome, which established the
official dogma, suppressing all other competing views.30
Responses to BauerIn an essay of this restricted length it is obviously impossible to respond
fully to a substantial book like Bauer’s. Rather I will summarize some of
the key responses that have been posed in some detail by others, both as
a direction for further reading and as a focused summary of the critical
verdicts that have accumulated since Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im äl-
testen Christentum was first published in 1934.31 In one sense, this survey
of literature may seem rather tendentious or superfluous. It is justified,
however, by the fact that contemporary scholars such as Ehrman seem to
assume the validity of Bauer’s general thesis.32 For our purposes, the most
significant critiques of Bauer, in historical order, include the following.33
30. See the similar summary in Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 176 (172–75 in greater
detail); McCue, “Orthodoxy and Heresy,” 119–20; and Bock, Missing Gospels, 49–50.
31. I give, for the most part, only the conclusions and do not attempt to detail
all the supporting evidence in these critiques. Also note that I have included only
reviews that are critical of some aspect of Bauer’s thesis. Since I am persuaded that
most of Bauer’s work is misguided, and that the studies discussed here demonstrate
that quite clearly, it is not necessary to list the areas in which I agree with his analy-
sis or note other scholars who do the same. For an extended discussion of (largely
positive) responses, see Georg Strecker’s appendix in the English translation of Bauer
(Strecker, “Reception of the Book”). These are, of course, only the earlier responses
to the German edition. Most reviews have included positive elements of appreciation
(see Köstenberger and Kruger, Heresy of Orthodoxy, 33).
32. See Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 172–75.
33. For broad-ranging surveys of reviews published since 1934, see the articles by
Harrington, “Reception,” 289–98; Flora, “Critical Analysis,” 37–88; and Desjardins,
“Bauer and Beyond,” 65–82. For a review of earlier responses to the German edition,
see Strecker, “Reception of the Book.” Another work that is sometimes listed as a cri-
tique of Bauer is Hultgren’s Rise of Normative Christianity, but though disagreeing with
Bauer, it is not a particularly focused critique—and a number of Hultgren’s proposals,
building on Robinson and Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity, are them-
selves problematic. For a brief summary of Hultgren’s approach, see Köstenberger and
Kruger, Heresy of Orthodoxy, 37.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts18
Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (1954)
The first major critique of Bauer was H. E. W. Turner’s The Pattern of
Christian Truth34—the Bampton Lectures for 1954. The 500+ pages of
this study offer Turner’s “equivalent” of Bauer’s work, but chapter two
is an explicit critique of Bauer. His analysis follows Bauer’s geographi-
cal outline. In regards to Edessa he concludes that “the evidence is too
scanty and in many respects too flimsy to support any theory so tren-
chant and clear-cut as Bauer proposes” and “his skepticism on many
points of detail appears excessive” (45). Turning to Egypt he proposes
that there is more literary evidence than Bauer has acknowledged (some
of it unknown in Bauer’s day, but not all). “Most of the new discover-
ies have the effect of moving what we know of Alexandrine Christianity
further to the right” (i.e., toward a more “orthodox” view). The greater
probability is that the evidence Bauer examined is to be understood as
representative of “splinter groups on the fringe of the Church” (57). All
told, there is less evidence for Bauer’s thesis from Alexandria than from
Edessa (59). Likewise in Asia Minor there is nothing which “supports the
more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction” (63). The picture Bauer
draws of Corinth, Rome, and 1 Clement “is at best non-proven” (67). As
will others who follow, Turner charges Bauer with a “misuse of the argu-
ment from silence. If we have no evidence for the fact, we can hardly
offer any profitable conjecture about its alleged cause” (67). Turner’s final
verdict is that Bauer’s “fatal weakness appears to be a persistent tendency
to over-simplify problems, combined with the ruthless treatment of such
evidence as fails to support his case” (79).
Betz, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Primitive Christianity” (1965)
Although basically in agreement with Bauer’s approach, Hans Dieter Betz
pointed out two significant problems. First, on Egypt, Bauer got it wrong:
there was a strong gnostic presence, but that is not the only form of Chris-
tianity seen there. Second, he ignored the New Testament evidence; in
particular, he “clearly underestimates Paul’s fight against his opponents.
Bauer overlooks the fact that Paul claims to be ‘orthodox.’ Wherever Paul
34. Turner, Pattern of Christian Truth.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 19
argues in his letters, he does it to prove that his theological understanding
is in accordance with the kerygma itself.”35
Chapman, “Some Theological Reflections on Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum: A Review Article” (1970)
G. Clarke Chapman’s review article was published prior to the release of the
English translation of Bauer.36 Chapman targets two major tactics: Bauer’s
numerous arguments from silence (“habitually sees many gaps in our re-
cords as significant or ominous”), and his “habitually coercing ambiguous
pieces of evidence” to fit a preconceived theory (567). According to Chap-
man, Bauer is also overly skeptical of Eusebius and other Fathers who de-
fend the traditional view, yet “gives immediate and weighty credence to the
slightest reference by the church fathers to widespread or predominating
heresy” (567).37 Chapman also rejects Bauer’s portrait of “power politics
and sociological pressures” emanating from Rome, suggesting instead that
we ought to consider the possibility that the victory of orthodoxy is related
to providence: “certain broad lines of interpretation may have triumphed
because of their theological adequacy” (572), though he realizes that “his-
torians” have trouble dealing with such theological categories.
Flora, “A Critical Analysis of Walter Bauer’s Theory of Early Christian Orthodoxy and Heresy” (1972)
One of the first full-length critics of Bauer from an American writer was
the dissertation presented at The Southern Baptist Seminary in 1972
by Jerry Flora.38 Flora leveled some stiff criticism against Bauer’s thesis,
which he viewed as a one-sided over-reaction to the traditional, Eusebian
view of heresy. As a result, Flora argued that Bauer’s conclusions need to
be substantially modified (though not rejected out of hand).
35. Betz, “Orthodoxy and Heresy,” 306–8 (direct quote from 308).
36. Chapman, “Some Theological Reflections,” 564–74.
37. Chapman later used the phrase “Eusebius demythologized” (ibid., 569).
38. Flora, “Critical Analysis of Walter Bauer’s Theory.”
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts20
There were four major criticisms. First, Bauer’s view of Paul is mis-
guided. Rather than a “tolerant” apostle who became “all things to all
men” and “did not know what a heretic might be” (105), Paul claimed to
be orthodox in contradistinction to others whom he pronounced quite
decidedly to be wrong (106). “He plainly conceived himself to be an au-
thorized apostle and his doctrine to be correct, as over against that of his
unnamed opponents” (107). Second, Bauer was selective in the evidence
cited and in the areas of the early church discussed: Edessa and Egypt
are crucial, followed in importance by second-century Antioch and
western Asia Minor. But, Flora asks, “what of the origin and develop-
ment of Christianity in Judea (Jerusalem), in western Syria (Antioch), in
Gaul (Lyons), in Africa (Carthage), and in Italy (Rome)? Here are other
regions important to the life of the church by the close of the second
century, but he did not analyze their origins, nor did he say why he chose
not to” (113).39 Though Bauer may have been able to offer a plausible ar-
gument for the priority of heresy in some areas, he conveniently ignored
those areas not compatible with his thesis. Third, to argue that orthodoxy
only gradually developed later after a long struggle with prior heresy is an
over-simplified picture (115–24). Fourth, that Rome imposed its brand
of Christianity on other churches assumes that the church in Rome was
unified in the second century, but this flies in the face of the evidence
for considerable diversity in Rome (125–30). Many of the early heretics
were associated with Rome, including Simon Magus, Valentinus, Mar-
cion, Apelles, Praxes, Theodotus, and Sabellius (131). “Prior to the time
of Irenaeus and Victor, Rome was scarcely the juggernaut that Bauer de-
scribed. It was a divided community, trying to find its way into an uncer-
tain future. . . . The doctrine of Rome could not alone and automatically
guarantee orthodoxy” (138).
Flora also develops an argument regarding the evidence for con-
tinuity between the first-century church, and particularly the apostolic
church, and the second-century church:
To maintain that orthodoxy was a late development which tri-
umphed only with great difficulty seems to be saying too much.
While it may have emerged in strength comparatively late and
not without struggle, orthodoxy existed in continuity with the
commitment and purpose of the first two generations of the
39. In the two overlaps in his lists (Antioch and Rome), Flora intends the second
list to refer to the origin of these churches in the first century. Bauer discusses both
cities/churches, but only in the second century and later.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 21
Christian movement. That apostolic witness with its histori-
cal perspective became the foundation on which Catholicism
built and at the same time the stumbling block over which the
heresies fell (149).
Heron, “The Interpretation of I Clement in Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum” (1973)
Rather than addressing the entire scope of Bauer’s thesis, most subse-
quent studies have focused on individual aspects of it. One of the first of
these was A. I. C. Heron’s examination of Bauer’s use of 1 Clement within
Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum.40 A crucial aspect
of Bauer’s thesis is the influence of Rome—the early orthodox “power
broker” who forced her way into a dominant position over weaker
churches and alternate interpretations of Christianity. It is this argument
that Heron examines in considerable detail. He acknowledges that it ap-
pears “extremely attractive” due especially to it being clear, direct, and
comprehensive. But this attractiveness is itself problematic:
Precisely because the whole interpretation is so plausible, one
must immediately wonder whether its virtues of simplicity
and comprehensiveness are to be attributed to Bauer’s discov-
ery of the real significance of the events and developments he
describes, or whether rather they reflect a desire to impose on
the complexity of history an over-simplified pattern. Is the plau-
sibility and attractiveness of the whole theory based upon its
coherence with the available evidence, or is it rather based upon
the power of Bauer’s synthesizing imagination?41
Heron will conclude that the latter is, unfortunately, the case. His
first major criticism is that Bauer’s interpretation of 1 Clement is not based
on 1 Clement. It is based, rather, on evidence drawn from elsewhere and
from attempting to read between the lines in 1 Clement, assuming that
the letter itself is in part designed to hide Rome’s true message and motive
(526). “He has explained—indeed, explained away—all those elements in
I Clement which might seem to weigh against his interpretation, which
40. Heron, “Interpretation of I Clement,” 517–45.
41. Ibid., 525.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts22
he opposes to the meaning which Clement prefers to suggest” (i.e., what
a plain reading of the text of 1 Clement itself would seem to say).
In more specific terms, Heron argues that there is no evidence that
Rome succeeded in imposing a monarchical bishop on Corinth, nor that
they bribed the leaders of the opposition in Corinth. Even more seri-
ously, Bauer’s assumption that Rome’s motive is not love and concern (as
1 Clement seems to suggest), but a power move to extend orthodoxy is
unsupported; Bauer can only adduce this by reading back evidence from
a century or more later (529–30). Nor will Bauer’s hypothesis stand that
the real issue in Corinth is that of an “orthodox” minority being ousted by
a gnosticizing majority. Although an appealing and plausible suggestion,
“the evidence which is given to show that it is in fact what did happen
is remarkably tenuous, and is drawn almost exclusively not only from
evidence other than that of I Clement, but from evidence which relates
to events and developments which all took place in places or at times
more or less remote from Corinth 95–96” (530). Bauer’s suggestions that
second-century writers who refer to 1 Clement understand that letter to
relate to the question of “orthodoxy” versus “heresy” is likewise “exceed-
ingly doubtful” (536; see 533–36).
Heron concludes that,
Bauer’s whole interpretation of I Clement is . . . rather less sat-
isfactorily buttressed by convincing evidence than one might
wish. . . . It need hardly be said that when all the components of
an argument are as weak as those we have to deal with here, the
argument as a whole, however plausible or attractive in itself it
may appear, cannot be taken very seriously. . . .
. . . The theory as a whole indeed depends more on his pow-
ers of imagination than on the facts available to us.42
After then devoting the following eight pages to a positive study of the
relevant issues in 1 Clement, Heron reiterates that “attractive, and in itself
plausible as [Bauer’s] interpretation of I Clement is, it cannot be regarded
as anything more than an interesting but improbable speculation” (545).
42. Ibid., 536–37.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 23
Norris, “Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered” (1976)
Although Frederick Norris accepts Bauer’s negative thesis (his critique of
the traditional, orthodox theory of the origin of heresy), he argues that
Bauer’s positive theses are not defensible; that is, his reconstruction of
how things did happen in the second century. Bauer’s explanations of the
events related to Ignatius, Polycarp, and 1 Clement are invalid. Much of
this failure is Bauer’s frequent argument from silence, but
his basic error is in reading history backwards, either by de-
manding that the fullest or even ‘ideal’ stage of a development
must be present at its beginning in order for it to exist, or by
imposing later events on earlier ones to support his interpreta-
tions. Frankly, he misreads the texts. One should be cautious in
following his lead in places where there are few texts and much
silence, when it can be demonstrated that he does not proceed
on good grounds with the existent texts.43
Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Egypt (1977)
One of the most detailed studies of Egyptian Christianity, particularly the
strange silence regarding it prior to AD 200, is Colin H. Roberts’s Manu-
script, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt.44 His purpose is not
primarily a critique of Bauer; that is a secondary outcome in the second
half of the book. In contrast to Bauer’s query as to where the evidence is
for orthodoxy in the second century, Roberts asks why there is no trace
of either orthodoxy or heresy; there are hardly any traces of Christianity
in any form. But there is some and Roberts proceeds to sort through the
available evidence, beginning with the papyri and evidence within vari-
ous documents (such as nomina sacra). His conclusion is that the silence
has little to do with the prevalence of Gnosticism, but rather that Egyptian
(and in particular Alexandrian) Christianity originally remained more
tightly connected to the Jewish community in Alexandria than it had
in other parts of the empire, and apparently on better terms with their
43. Norris, “Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement,” 43.
44. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts24
non-Christian Jewish neighbors. Few Gentiles apparently became part
of the church there, so it retained a strongly Jewish flavor, even after AD
70. Only when the Jewish community in Egypt was nearly exterminated
during the Jewish revolt there (AD 115–117) does Christianity begin to
evidence itself distinctly.
We may surmise that for much of the second century it was a
church with no strong central authority and little organization;
one of the directions in which it developed was certainly Gnos-
ticism, but a Gnosticism not initially separated from the rest
of the Church. It was the teaching and personality of the two
Gnostic leaders, Basilides and Valentinius, that impressed the
Christian world outside Egypt and were remembered, but this
is not the whole story. . . . [eventually] the line between Gnos-
tic and Catholic Christianity was more sharply drawn; but in
Egypt, as can be seen in Clement and Origen, the process was
slow and distinctions sometimes remained blurred.45
McCue, “Orthodoxy and Heresy: Walter Bauer and the Valentinians” (1979)
Related to Roberts’s study of Egyptian Christianity, James McCue, in
his article “Orthodoxy and Heresy: Walter Bauer and the Valentinians,”
debated Bauer’s handling of the Valentinian gnostic data.46 He argues
that “Bauer is simply wrong” (119) since he overlooks three key points
regarding Valentinianism:
1) The orthodox play a role in Valentinian thought such that
they seem to be part of the Valentinian self-understanding. 2)
This reference often suggests that the orthodox are the main
body, and at several points explicitly and clearly identifies the
orthodox as the many over against the small number of Val-
entinians. 3) The Valentinians of the decades prior to Irenaeus
and Clement of Alexandria use the books of the orthodox New
Testament in a manner that is best accounted for by supposing
that Valentinianism developed within a mid-second century
matrix (120).
45. Ibid., 71–72. The description of the church there as de-centralized and less
organized can be confirmed and documented in some detail from Pearson, Gnosticism
and Christianity, 18–20, who depends on Jakab, Ecclesia Alexandria, 176–77.
46. McCue, “Orthodoxy and Heresy,” 118–30.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 25
McCue’s subsequent discussion documents these three points from
the Valentinians’ own statements. Points one and two, in particular,
validate Edwin Yamauchi’s claim that “Gnosticism always appears as a
parasite. . . . ‘it is always built on earlier, pre-existing religions or on their
traditions.’ ”47
Robinson, The Bauer Thesis Examined (1988)
By far the most detailed analysis of Bauer’s work is Thomas A. Robinson’s
The Bauer Thesis Examined.48 This carefully argued work proposes that
“Bauer’s understanding of orthodoxy and heresy does not provide the
kind of insight into the character of earliest Christianity that is widely
attributed to it” (27). In contrast to Bauer’s thesis that heresy was early
and dominant, Robinson concludes that “it is the catholic community,
not the gnostic, that represents the character of the majority in western
Asia Minor in the early period” (203). To support this conclusion, he
first sketches the history of the debate (chap. 1). Robinson addresses one
of the unique features of Bauer’s approach: the geographical treatment
of the question of heresy in the early church. Bauer’s choice to begin
with Edessa was deliberate since there he could make his strongest case.
Robinson evaluates the evidence available from various areas, conclud-
ing that only Asia Minor can form an adequate basis for evaluating the
orthodoxy-heresy debate—“no other area is remotely comparable” (41).
The criteria for this judgment is two-fold: extensive literature, including
literature that addresses the question of heresy. On this basis Bauer is
faulted for placing the greatest weight on two areas, Edessa and Egypt,
that have neither feature—the evidence there is scanty and ambiguous,
to say nothing of the fact that neither was a primary center of the early
church (42). The other potential areas (Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, and
Rome) are not satisfactory either.49
47. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 185, citing in part, Drijvers, “Origins of
Gnosticism,” 331.
48. Robinson, Bauer Thesis Examined; originally, Robinson, “Orthodoxy and
Heresy.”
49. Edessa, in particular, is problematic in that “our information is too ambiguous
or mute to allow us confident reconstructions of Christianity in this area” (Robin-
son, Bauer Thesis Examined, 58). Egypt, likewise: “the scarcity of the materials from
Egypt results in suspicious gaps in the logic of these various reconstructions” (64).
Corinth may sound more promising, but beyond 1 and 2 Corinthians, we have only
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts26
Robinson then turns to the one area which provides the primary
data unavailable elsewhere—Asia Minor. After examining the impor-
tance and character of Ephesus and western Asia Minor (chap. 3), he
turns to a detailed evaluation of Bauer (chaps. 4 and 5). “Bauer’s detective
work—never dull, sometimes ingenious, occasionally brilliant—suffers
from defects more serious than the sporadic overstatements and tenden-
tious claims . . . . Far more fundamental and less easily corrigible, the
defects of Bauer’s argument are structural” (129). These structural defects
include: “(1) the hypothetical alliance of ‘ecclesiastically oriented’ Paulin-
ists with Palestinian immigrants against Gnosticizing Paulinists; (2) the
alleged strength of heresy in the area; and (3) the proposed cause for the
rise of the monarchical episcopate (129–30).”
The final verdict is that,
Bauer’s reconstruction of the history of the early church in
western Asia Minor is faulty—not just in minor details—but at
critical junctures. For one thing, the thesis does not adequately
explain the alliance between Palestinian immigrants and anti-
gnostic Paulinists; for another, it does not recognize the early
consciousness of orthodoxy that might be indicated by such
a shift. Further, it has failed to explain how a browbeaten or-
thodox minority could have so radically altered the structure
of power in their favour. Finally, and most significantly, it has
not demonstrated that heresy was as widespread and strong
as Bauer had contended. In light of these weaknesses, Bauer’s
reconstruction of primitive Christianity in western Asia Minor
must, to a large measure, be set aside.
But the setting aside of Bauer’s reconstruction of the early
church in western Asia Minor points to something more seriously
flawed about the Bauer Thesis. The failure of the Bauer Thesis in
western Asia Minor is not merely one flaw in an otherwise coher-
ent reconstruction. The failure of the thesis in the only area where
it can be adequately tested casts suspicion on the other areas of
Bauer’s investigation. Extreme caution should be exercised in
granting to the Bauer Thesis insight into those areas for which
one document for late first and early second century: 1 Clement, which is “a less de-
tailed and considerably more ambiguous momentary glimpse of that church from a
person who seems not to have had first-hand acquaintance with the church there. That
makes for inventive, untestable, and not necessarily accurate hypotheses” (77). Rome
is unfruitful since we have too little information to determine the original form of
Christianity there (81), and the literary evidence is meager as it relates to Rome itself
and none of it addresses the question of heresy (81–84). We have no literary evidence
for either Jerusalem or Antioch in the relevant period (84–87, 88–91).
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 27
inventive theses appear credible only because evidence is either
too scarce or too mute to put anything to the test (204).
Desjardins, “Bauer and Beyond: On Recent
Christian Era” (1991)
A helpful, synthetic response to Bauer’s work is Michel Desjardins’s article,
“Bauer and Beyond.”50 Much of the article consists of digesting and evalu-
ating the work of others, but in so doing he synthesizes these other stud-
ies in a helpful way. He approves Robinson’s arguments “on the whole” as
being “well-taken and well-argued,” concluding that Robinson has added
“another row of nails to the coffin enclosing Bauer’s thesis.”51 Desjardins’s
primary contribution relates to the meaning of αἵρεσις. He suggests that
Bauer has asked the wrong question. Instead of asking whether orthodoxy
or heresy came first (Bauer’s question), one should ask “what αἵρεσις actu-
ally meant for first and second-century writers.”52 He seems to endorse
Cohen’s suggestion that heresy was not a category invented by early or-
thodoxy as Bauer assumes, but arises from the church’s Jewish heritage,
reflecting similar categories as the rabbis. The “common use of scripture
and belief in one God possibly led [the Jewish rabbis and the early church]
independently to notions of unity, oneness, and exclusivity.”53 This has
obvious implications in support of a more traditional view in which “or-
thodoxy” is original and “heresy” later and derivative.
Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (2004)
Although not formally a critique of Bauer’s work, Birger A. Pearson’s
study examines in considerable detail one of the key geographical areas
on which Bauer’s thesis is founded. I do not accept some of Pearson’s
dates or interpretations, but he has provided a very helpful survey of the
50. Desjardins, “Bauer and Beyond,” 65–82.
51. Ibid., 72.
52. Ibid., 72; see also 78.
53. Ibid., 77.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts28
documentary evidence for Christianity in second- and third-century
Egypt. He clearly demonstrates that there was diversity present, yet he
rejects Bauer’s explanation that heresy was original and dominant. He
cites in particular The Preaching of Peter, an early second-century pseude-
pigraphal writing that reflects traditional, “orthodox” Christianity. Since
this is the earliest such documentary evidence available, it carries consid-
erable weight in the discussion. Pearson comments that “Bauer ignores
this important work, which would have been detrimental to his theory.”54
Davidson, The Birth of the Church (2004)
A more recent critique of Bauer comes in Ivor J. Davidson’s history of
the early church. He concludes that Bauer has ignored the evidence of
theological diversity with the Roman church itself, and that Rome’s “po-
litical” influence over other churches only developed slowly; they were
surely not in a position to repress their peers when Christianity was still
an illegal religion (as it was until the fourth century). Nor does Bauer give
sufficient credit to the influence of the Jerusalem church as the “mother
church” which specified key matters of doctrine and practice (158).
Above all, however, Bauer’s theory overlooks the degree to which
there clearly was from the beginning a certain set of convictions
about Jesus that bound a majority of believers together, and it
underestimates the intrinsic impetus that existed within these
convictions to work out the logical parameters within which
the gospel and its advocates could be said to exist. The process
of discerning truth and falsehood that evolved in the late first
and second centuries was implicitly grounded in the attempts
by the first followers of Jesus to think through the consequences
of their newfound faith with regard to personal salvation and
practical living.55
54. Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity, 16n18. This work is described as lying
“on a trajectory leading to the mainline Christianity of Clement” (16; see also 44).
55. Davidson, Birth of the Church, 158.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 29
Trebilco, “Christian Communities in Western Asia Minor into the Early Second Century: Ignatius and Others as Witnesses against Bauer” (2006)
One of the plenary addresses at the 2005 annual meeting of the Evan-
gelical Theological Society directly addressed a key portion of Bauer’s
arguments.56 Paul Trebilco made four points regarding Bauer’s use of the
Ignatian evidence with regard to Asia Minor. 1) The evidence shows that
the earliest form of Christianity in western Asia Minor was orthodox and
that the heresies that Ignatius opposed were later, derivative forms, es-
pecially in regard to Docetism. 2) Bauer’s inference (based on Ignatius
and John not writing a letter to them) that Colossae and Hieropolis were
heretical churches is ill-founded; several other explanations are much
more probable than Bauer’s argument from silence. 3) Bauer’s contention
that disagreement with the bishop was evidence of theological differences
(i.e., heresy) is overstated; many of the differences that Ignatius discusses
were organizational and structural. And 4) contrary to Bauer’s conclusion
that any Pauline memory or influence has been completely lost in Ephesus
(because the church there had been heretical for so long), there is evidence
of Pauline influence in western Asia Minor at the time of Ignatius.
Trebilco has some specific comments regarding the existence of “or-
thodoxy” in the geographical area covered by his study. “So in the litera-
ture from Western Asia Minor we find a strong sense of applying criteria
by which to judge whether, in the opinion of the author and his com-
munity, a certain belief or practice is in keeping with the tradition. This
trend is consonant with the sense of “the tradition,” “sound teaching,” or
“the truth” that we find in these documents” (42). “Thus the roots of later
‘orthodoxy’ are to be found here. ‘Orthodoxy’ is not to be seen as a later
victory by those in power, or something determined by politics. It goes
back to and is an organic development from the much earlier period. . . .
[There is] a strong sense of doctrinal self-consciousness on the part of the
canonical authors. . . . This sense of a limit, self-consciously adopted, is a
very significant feature of Western Asia Minor” (43).
The conclusion of Trebilco’s article is that “Bauer’s thesis does not
stand up to scrutiny with regard to the situation in Western Asia Minor.
Where we can investigate the matter, what Bauer calls ‘heresy’ is neither
the earliest form of Christian faith, nor is it in the majority” (43).
56. Trebilco, “Christian Communities,” 17–44.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts30
Köstenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (2010)
A recent critique of the Bauer Thesis appears in Andreas Köstenberger
and Michael Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Cul-
ture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early
Christianity. If Thomas Robinson’s work solidified the label of the Bauer
Thesis in the secondary literature, Köstenberger and Kruger have con-
tributed the compounded tag of the “Bauer-Ehrman Thesis.” Although a
critique of the “Bauer-Ehrman Thesis” was “not the main purpose” of the
book (233), the topic fills up the initial one hundred pages, as the entire
first section of the book examines the “Bauer-Ehrman Thesis” in some
detail. Köstenberger and Kruger explain,
In chapter 1, we will look at the origin and influence of the
Bauer-Ehrman thesis, including its appropriation and critique
by others. Chapter 2 examines Bauer’s geographical argument
for the precedence of early diversity in the Christian movement
and considers patristic evidence for early orthodoxy and her-
esy, and chapter 3 turns to an area of investigation that Bauer
surprisingly neglected—the New Testament data itself. How
diverse was early Christianity, and did heresy in fact precede or-
thodoxy? These are the questions that will occupy us in the first
part of the book as we explore the larger paradigmatic questions
raised by the Bauer-Ehrman proposal (17).57
In chapter one, Köstenberger and Kruger argue, “One main reason
for Bauer’s surprising impact is that his views have found a fertile soil
in the contemporary cultural climate” (23). The authors highlight the
postmodern context, which praises subjective experience, diversity, plu-
ralism, and an inclusivity that repudiates exclusive truth claims as ideo-
logical power ploys.58 Therefore, “Bauer’s thesis has received a new lease
57. Part 2 applies their insights to “Picking the Books: Tracing the Development of
the New Testament Canon.” And Part 3 examines “Changing the Story: Manuscripts,
Scribes, and Textual Transmission.” For Michael Kruger’s further canonical studies,
see Kruger, Canon Revisited; and Kruger, Question of Canon.
58. “And thus the tables are turned—diversity becomes the last remaining or-
thodoxy, and orthodoxy becomes heresy, because it violates the new orthodoxy: the
gospel of diversity” (Köstenberger and Kruger, Heresy of Orthodoxy, 234); cf. Blaising,
“Faithfulness.”
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 31
on life through the emergence of postmodernism, the belief that truth is
inherently subjective and a function of power” (39).
The opening chapter also summarizes early critiques found in initial
reviews of Bauer’s work:59
First, Bauer’s conclusions were unduly conjectural in light
of the limited nature of the available evidence and in some cases
arguments from silence altogether.
Second, Bauer unduly neglected the New Testament
evidence and anachronistically used second-century data to
describe the nature of “earliest” (first-century) Christianity. . . .
Third, Bauer grossly oversimplified the first-century pic-
ture, which was considerably more complex than Bauer’s por-
trayal suggested. . . .
Fourth, Bauer neglected existing theological standards in
the early church.
The first chapter also reviews the “later critiques” of Turner, Mar-
shall, Martin, McCue, Robinson, and Hultgren (33–38).
Chapter two retraces Bauer’s steps by investigating the rise of Chris-
tianity in various locales, arguing that the earliest Christianity in these
places was orthodox in form rather than heretical. The authors survey the
evidence available for (1) Asia Minor, (2) Alexandria, (3) Edessa, and (4)
Rome.60 Köstenberger and Kruger conclude that “in all the major urban
centers investigated by Bauer, orthodoxy most likely preceded heresy or
the second-century data by itself is inconclusive” (52). The second chap-
ter further argues that apostolic Christianity was more unified than many
scholars allow and that Gnosticism was less organized than many ac-
knowledge (59–60). “In light of the available first-century evidence, any
assessment that concludes that Gnosticism was organized earlier than the
second century is ultimately an argument from silence” (61).
Chapter three of The Heresy of Orthodoxy focuses upon materials in
the New Testament. As others have done, Köstenberger and Kruger note
the irony of Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity not
actually examining earliest Christianity.61 “This explains, at least in part,
why Bauer found early Christianity to be diverse and orthodoxy late—
59. They also acknowledged that “most reviews were appreciative” to varying de-
grees (Köstenberger and Kruger, Heresy of Orthodoxy, 33).
60. Bauer also focused investigations upon Antioch, Macedonia, and Cyprus.
61. A similar point is made in Marshall, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earlier
Christianity.”
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts32
he failed to consult the New Testament message regarding Jesus and his
apostles” (69). Köstenberger and Kruger distinguish between “legitimate
diversity” (which they find in the New Testament) and “illegitimate di-
versity, striking at the core of the earliest Christological affirmations”
(100). “Bauer and his followers also fail to do justice to the massive Old
Testament substructure of New Testament theology and vastly underesti-
mate the pivotal significance of Jesus (who was both the primary subject
and object of the gospel message) in linking Old Testament messianic
prophecy organically with the gospel of the early Christians” (100–101).
ConclusionFollowing his own survey of previous studies, Daniel Harrington con-
cludes that “Bauer’s reconstruction of how orthodoxy triumphed remains
questionable.”62 It would seem that a stronger statement is justified. Larry
Hurtado’s judgment is correct:
Over the years . . . important studies have rather consistently
found Bauer’s thesis seriously incorrect. . . . In fact, about all that
remains unrefuted of Bauer’s argument is the observation, and a
rather banal one at that, that earliest Christianity was character-
ized by diversity, including serious differences of belief. Those
who laud Bauer’s book, however, obviously prefer to proceed as
if much more of his thesis is sustainable. Unfortunately, for this
preference, Bauer’s claims have not stood well the test of time
and critical examination.63
Or, as Darrell Bock asks, “if the two central Bauerian positions
are flawed [diverse origins and Roman influence], why does the overall
thesis stand?”64 We might rather conclude with Hans-Dietrich Altendorf
that Bauer has posed, at times, a “konstruktive Phantasie” or an “elegant
ausgearbeitete Fiktion.”65 Nevertheless, this “constructive” and “elegantly
62. Harrington, “Reception,” 297–98.
63. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 520–21.
64. Bock, Missing Gospels, 47.
65. “A constructive fantasy” and “an elegantly assembled fiction” (Altendorf, “Zum
Stichwort,” 64, cited by Bock, Missing Gospels, 50). Altendorf ’s article has not been
accessible to me; according to Bock, the first description relates to Bauer’s arguments
from silence, and the second refers to his view of the Roman church’s relation to
Corinth in 1 Clement.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd
SAMPLE
t h e b au e r t h e s i s 33
assembled” work of scholarly speculation continues to wield substantial
(though disputed) sway over the discipline.66
66. An earlier version of this essay appeared in Journal of Ministry and Theology 13
(2009) 30–63. It has been adapted and updated here.
© 2015 James Clarke and Co Ltd